I played with both lenses and then kept the Sigma. Price was not a factor. I like the bokeh on the sigma at least as well as the canon (usually better). I also like the sunstars on the sigma much better.

I really can't understand the nitpicking with the bokeh... I haven't met any photog who would choose bokeh over sharpness. Well, I guess if you've paid $1000+ for a 35L then the sigma has to be THAT bad...

I really can't understand the nitpicking with the bokeh... I haven't met any photog who would choose bokeh over sharpness. Well, I guess if you've paid $1000+ for a 35L then the sigma has to be THAT bad...

I really can't understand the nitpicking with the bokeh... I haven't met any photog who would choose bokeh over sharpness. Well, I guess if you've paid $1000+ for a 35L then the sigma has to be THAT bad...

Not me. I'm sold - I'm getting the sigma.

It all depends on the photos you like to take and your aesthetic priorities; there are many situations when what's out of focus in a photo is as important as, or even more important than, what's in focus; and some of us (I doubt I'm alone) care quite a bit about what the out of focus bits look like even when they're relatively unimportant. This has nothing to do with L or price snobbery. The main reason why I bought a Sigma 50-500mm OS instead of the Canon 100-400L is that the former has smoother bokeh than the latter (or at any rate the copy I rented). In my Pentax days I preferred the dirt-cheap, technically shoddy, 100-300mm lens I bought second hand (it was long out of production) to it's sharper, more expensive, better made replacement for the same reason. Besides, in my (rather limited, admittedly) experience, differences in bokeh among lenses are usually more noticeable than differences in sharpness in most uses.

i don't think this would qualify as thread jacking, but i've seen a few shots from the 50L that showed very nervous bokeh that was really a mess. so much so that photozone even pointed it out in their review. I'm not saying the 50L is a mess, i'm saying that even lenses known for their great ability can trip up sometimes. Most of the early samples i saw on the net of the sigma looked a bit nervous to me, but in my use, so far anyway i haven't seen a problem.

BTW- and this probably is thread jacking, most people love leica bokeh, and almost everything i've seen from them is clearly a bokeh disaster, so who knows? perhaps dropping that level of cash on something can cloud your vision. hey, i made a pun, hi five!

i don't think this would qualify as thread jacking, but i've seen a few shots from the 50L that showed very nervous bokeh that was really a mess. so much so that photozone even pointed it out in their review. I'm not saying the 50L is a mess, i'm saying that even lenses known for their great ability can trip up sometimes. Most of the early samples i saw on the net of the sigma looked a bit nervous to me, but in my use, so far anyway i haven't seen a problem.

BTW- and this probably is thread jacking, most people love leica bokeh, and almost everything i've seen from them is clearly a bokeh disaster, so who knows? perhaps dropping that level of cash on something can cloud your vision. hey, i made a pun, hi five!

Yeah! *high five*Even Leica glass has comma and nervousness that can make anyone wonder why all the cash for a few pieces of glass.But as for me, I love nervous background bokeh, I want a crazy vortex of light and colors! But not always, it does get quite distracting.

Photozone is right, the 50L produces crazy bokeh in the corners, and I've come across several examples of that, nervous triangles tearing apart the rest of the smooth OOF background. I've seen tons of great example with the Sig 35, and like anything, you look for trouble and you'll find it, nit pick and try and find what doesn't look good and yeah, any lens will show a flaw/something dissatisfactory to someone.

I don't recall anyone nitpicking a lens so much for it's bokeh when everything else is fab, generally the consideration for the quality of bokeh of a lens, especially at these price points and class of lenses is always there, but this must mean though that Sigma just has no other faults to look at, so everyone wants to point at something it's not the absolute best at. And talk about onion highlights? The 35L can produce those onions too! http://www.flickr.com/photos/pong0814/5596735626/#

And, unlike the Sigma, the 35L doesn't keep rounded circular highlights when stopped down if that matters for anyone.

+1

Very, very well said.

I've always complained about Canon's 8-blade apertures... you start seeing octagons in OOF highlights when you stop down even 2/3 of a stop on many of Canon's primes (e.g. the 'venerable' 85/1.2). What I hate even more is that 8-blade aperture lenses produce 8-point sunstars.

Just adding one blade gives you 18-point sunstars. AND circular OOF highlights.

Nikon's had 9-blade apertures for a while now.

What took Canon so long?

Mmm, yeah, the more I look into these things the more I wonder why I'm with Canon... well, if Sigma made competent cameras along with FF sensors then I'm lookin' at them, I'll practically be all-Sigma after I get that 35mm, just need to see if I'll keep Canon's 50 1.4

It is clear we have the sigma crowd in full PR mode here on this thread now 35L warts and all produces a pleasing bokeh ... Tough to put your finger on it. Looking at the sigma shots they all have that slightly disquieting bokeh...and nervous is a great word... If that is your thing more power to you. But I will never buy the idea that sharpness is all that counts.

I will however leave the door open till more head-to-head bokeh comparisons of the two lenses trickle in from unbiased sources, before I throw my canon 35L over and join the sigma bandwagon. I would wait to see comparisons of real world backgrounds, trees, indoor shots, etc. not set up OOF night lights we have seen in the limited samples. Lens rentals Roger's and the Korean site are the only two galleries with several real life shots and they both suggest sub-par bokeh and that odd color rendition for the sigma lens. It is what it is and you like it or you don't, but those who don't know it when they see it. And i don't like what i see so far. But I will leave the door open till we have more data...unbiased data that is